General Committee, 17 February 2025
Date: Monday, 17 February 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, QLD 4565, Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:44:57
Synopsis: Tinbeerwah Facility: minor change approved; Condition 21 monitoring; fence rejected, Planning: code-assessable; appeal risk, Finance: revenue up; spend under; 10m cash, Hub: NextPlay lease.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.722
I declare the meeting open and wish to acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people, the Traditional Custodians of this land, their elders past, present and emerging. We are all in attendance but we have Councillor Finzel and Councillor Lorentson attending via online. Means. So welcome all. Confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move? I'll move. Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. We have no presentations nor do we have deputations so we're moving on to an item referred from committees and there is one of those. It's item 7.1. It's a material use 210154.02. Application for a minor change to development approval for a home-based business meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. And we welcome Patrick, and we welcome Richard, and we welcome Andrew from the development control team to the table. And Andrew, give us an overview. Andrew 01:07.937
That's it. Thank you. Council is in receipt of an application for a change to a for Material Change of Use, home-based business, meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. The change request relates to a number of the development parameters which were applicable to the site when Council gave the approval back in 2021. I'm not sure if everybody is aware of the approval, but the approval given in 2021 relates to the processing of deer meat at the site. The current approval allows for up to 10 deer be processed at the property once a week. So they are the sort of general parameters which are applicable to the site. The only other issue relevant at the moment is that only one person and resident of the site can occupy and undertake the Homebased business use. So that's the current sort of set up. The applicant has requested a change to the approval to allow up to two additional employees to assist at requested the site, to approval mainly because the physical handling of the current approved number of deers to be processed at the site is allowing too much, it's too labour intensive for the owner and the applicant, so they would like to have an additional up to two people to assist during the permitted hours of operation, which are between 8 and 5pm Monday to Friday. Thank you. So the actual amendment would require a change to number of the conditions of the approval to allow that to occur, as well as to allow that to occur between the hours of 8 and 4pm Monday to Friday. So at the moment the property is located within the rural residential zone and it occurs at an existing shed at the property located in the northwest corner of the property. So the shed is located approximately 15 metres from the road frontage and is accessed by one driveway battle axe handle to the rear of the site. Upon review of the relevant sort of matters and impacts relevant to the site, this would involve an additional two car parking entrance, two vehicle two car parks. Movements vehicle movements in the morning to access the rear of the site to undertake the assistance of the shed and then the leaving of the property in a total of four traffic movements per day at the site. Upon review of the application requested changes, it is recommended that the changes be approved. And that the two additional staff members be allowed between the hours 4:00 the applicant has also requested an extension of a lapsing date, which is relevant to the site as well. Council had originally conditioned that the approval. Be reviewed after a two-year period, and that was applicable to the 17th of December last year. That was requested by the applicant to be removed from the approval. The removal of that condition is not recommended, but extended for an additional two-year period, so on a four-year basis up until 2029, but that's right. Brian Stockwell 04:55.870
Okay, do we have any questions? Frank Wilkie 04:57.665
Yes, thank you for the report, Andrew. The change doesn't represent an intensification of use on site, does it? That's right. So still 10 deer per week? Patrick Murphy 05:10.766
Same operating hours, same number of carcasses to be brought onto the site. Same building, just additional staff. Frank Wilkie 05:19.127
And the extension of the two-year trial period, for want of a better word, allows you to monitor the operations if there's any complaints? Patrick Murphy 05:27.878
That's correct. We have extended it out. By four years, so a longer period than what was previously allowed. But noting the change that's proposed, just to ensure that there's no complaints. Frank Wilkie 05:39.523
And during the previous two-year trial period, there were complaints lodged. Could you tell us about the you findings? When you investigated the complaints. Patrick Murphy 05:51.216
Um there was were some issues raised around some landscaping, that it wasn't comprehensive enough in terms of what was required, so there was further landscaping that had been undertaken and signed off earlier last year. There's also been some complaints around who's been attending the sites and vehicle movements. They've been investigated and haven't been substantiated. Brian Stockwell 06:19.255
Thank you. Other questions? No? My only question then is, under the State law now it's a code-assessable application, I can't think of an instance where we have time limited a code-assessable application. I just wonder the merits if we have had two years of operation without substantiated complaints that they've complied with conditions, whether it is reasonable and relevant to actually limit the four-accessible years on a application, considering, you know, with extra staff there's up to four additional traffic movements on the days that they're actually operating. Frank Wilkie 07:05.550
Point of order, is this a question, Mr Chair? Brian Stockwell 07:08.910
You're probably right, I'm talking too long. So the question is, it general practice to put time limits on code-assessable applications and would this now be considered a code-assessable application? Patrick Murphy 07:21.155
That's a good question. I don't recall that we would have put time limits on a code-assessable application in the past. If a new application was made today it certainly would be code-assessable for this use. Fair to say there was some discussion amongst us as officers in terms of certainly should we apply an extended period as well or remove it completely we fell on the side of cautious being cautious in terms of the change so appreciate that could be questioned. Brian Stockwell 08:04.681
I think I'll try an amendment. I'll just move the motion without the condition requiring a time limit just to test what other councils are thinking of the matter that will be I haven't got the condition in front of me. Patrick Murphy 08:23.157
That's all right. Brian Stockwell 08:23.720
Condition 21 is condition 21 but deleting condition 21. Correct. Deb 08:33.495
I'm going to use this one and just write deleting condition 21. Frank Wilkie 08:40.414
And take that out Yes. Larry Sengstock 08:47.694
Yeah. Yes, thank you. Brian Stockwell 08:57.594
I have a seconder for that? No? Tom Wegener 09:01.719
I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 09:02.300
Oh, you'll second it? I just think we've had two years of operation. If anything, having staff on site will mean the processing time is quicker so the potential, you know, we haven't had any impact. Amenity, but that will go down. Will go down. My feeling is that, you know, the State government's made it very clear that home-based businesses can't be any more than code-assessable and, as I said, my recollection is we've never put a time-latching period on a code-assessable application and, hence, I think that the applicant has demonstrated that they comply can with conditions and not upset any of the neighbouring properties while conducting a home-based business, so I don't think it's necessary to have a four-year time-latch period. Tom Wegener 09:46.899
Question. So when we approved this, it wasn't code-assessable at that time. So is that an approval that's obviously still valid? If we do this and say it's a code-assessable, well, it wasn't a code-assessable. It doesn't change the nature of the approval in the past. It's not retrospectively code-assessable. Richard MacGillivray 10:11.265
Is that right? Correct, yes. So originally it was impact-assessable, and now with the changes late last year-- new application lodged can only be code-assessable under the changes to the regulations, planning regulation changes. So it doesn't change anything that's retrospectively. So the existing approval was impact-assessable and decided. So none of that's changed. It's just moving forward. Any new applications would only be code-assessable. Accessible. Amelia Lorentson 10:38.585
Can I ask a question through the Chair, please? Certainly. I'm going back to the report from our-- from Patrick and Andrew and agree with your-- of the request to delete. And your explanation was very quite clear due to the unique nature of the-- point of order, Mr Chair. There's a question. My question-- Thank you. Mayor. My question is in response to the reason that was outlined by Councillor Stockwell in terms of code assessment we've never required, you know, that an applicant come back every four years. Patrick Murphy 11:21.903
Have we ever had a meat processing facility approved in the Noosa Shire in the almost 10 years that I've been with Council I don't recall one or I can say there hasn't been another facility like this approved in a rural residential zone. Frank Wilkie 11:47.621
Look I'll speak to the motion I have appreciate what Council stock was tempted to do is his reasons are valid but um there was considerable interest community interest in this application when it first came to Council and the precautionary principle applied then and I think with the extra staff coming on board I think that to include the extra period for monitoring is wise it can't hurt so for that reason I support the staff recommendation to refuse to delete condition 21 I think the decision to include the extra period for appreciate Councillor Stockwell's reasons for testing this particular motion and his the reasons behind deleting condition 21 but I won't be supporting this particular motion in its current form so I'll signal that I'll be moving an amendment to refuse to delete condition 21. Brian Stockwell 13:04.910
So would you like to do that now? Frank Wilkie 13:07.192
I will I'll do that now. Karen Finzel 13:09.154
Excuse me Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 13:11.736
Yes. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 13:14.218
Yes before we proceed I did have my hand up before we do that may I just ask a question? Frank Wilkie 13:19.263
You may sorry. Brian Stockwell 13:23.287
Oh sorry I'm in chain. Oh yeah true sorry. Councillor Finzel. So Councillor Wilkie had the floor and it's up to him he has indicated he wants to proceed to move an amendment and then after if that's moved and seconded he can talk and then you can ask your question. Frank Wilkie 13:35.679
So it's the current motion. Thank you. The current motion but the change would be to section B refused to delete condition 21. Deb 13:53.208
The to current the motion but that refused. Frank Wilkie 13:59.240
To delete condition 21 be substituted for section B. Okay. You your attention. Is that right? No that refused to delete condition 21 is substituted. Brian Stockwell 14:21.766
So if you just put that and nothing else. Yep. Take all those words after that off. Yep. And then after B put the word refuse. Okay. And refuse to. Isn't that going to get back to the original? Richard MacGillivray 14:37.086
And revert that to original. It's still an amendment. Frank Wilkie 14:40.353
It's an amendment because this is the Council of Stockwell has moved a motion. That is the motion that's been moved before. Brian Stockwell 14:45.943
Well it really needs a dischanging commission. I think it's a leave it at that because it's a. If mine was an amendment you'd have to wait for that to go through but because it was a motion it's only partially amending. Frank Wilkie 15:05.398
So it would be that be refused to delete condition 21 be inserted be included that no be included condition 21 be included. Deb 15:19.042
Okay refused to delete condition 21 and be included no sorry be included. Frank Wilkie 15:25.708
Be included. Or would probably be more accurate to say replace being replaced on me with words yeah yes. Brian Stockwell 15:42.812
Thanks yeah. Get rid of B. Deb 15:52.551
Okay get rid of that get rid of that replace. Frank Wilkie 15:57.062
Item B with refused to delete condition 21. Amelia Lorentson 16:16.412
A question through the Chair please Councillor Stockwell maybe question to CEO is the replacement of the condition is it ultra vires are we better just to vote on the motion and then if Councillor Wilkie wants to move forward the original recommendation that we do so I'm just concerned by that what his intent is directly opposite your intent just a question for. Brian Stockwell 16:50.813
The senior yeah it's a call of the chairs not CEOs that as my motion was in globo and had condition removed and Councillor Wilkie is only changing that one condition it definitely is just an amendment to the motion it's not a direct negative if he was to move that the matter be refused that would be a direct negative of the motion. Thank motion the amendment. Frank Wilkie 17:36.382
Karen Finzel's got a hand. Brian Stockwell 17:37.965
Up but that was for the question there was no one online who wished to second that no so the amendment lapses. We proceed on with the motion so only Councillor Wilkie and myself have talking to talk to the motion. Tom Wegener 17:59.729
Procedurally okay Karen's under heaven sorry Karen. Brian Stockwell 18:02.993
Karen your turn for a question. Karen Finzel 18:04.319
Thank you Mr Chair just a question to help inform this decision regarding the process around managing retrospectively matters before us given the new conditions by the code-assessable for home-based business what is the process moving forward, do we have to stick to the original recommendation back when this was first moved or like what is the process when it comes to a retrospective decision do we have to stick to the original or can it be changed I'm just thanks yeah no problem. Richard MacGillivray 18:50.059
Yeah take this to the back yes so the applicant has sought to change the original approval so what we're considering today are just the elements of that are being sought to be changed we're not retrospectively seeking to take away any provisions the applicants applied for changes to their approval and we're considering of that change right now so it doesn't necessarily affect anything historical what's been decided it's been decided we're just assessing the elements of the changes that the applicant has sought so that's what we're limited to in terms of our assessment the regulation changes that the Deputy Mayor raised before relate to new applications moving forward so a fresh application for a home-based business would be code-assessable now as opposed to one such as this was impact assessable prior to the change to the regulations I hope that helps to clarify. Karen Finzel 19:49.274
And yes that's clarified thank you. Brian Stockwell 19:53.180
And just a question um if the application was a fresh and was assessed against the code would the application comply with all aspects of the code. Patrick Murphy 20:06.324
So our table of assessment I just go back a little bit allow for accepted development and it has certain provisions that must be met and some of those elements are included in the code assessment as well I've had a look at the those provisions accepted development provisions to see whether this would actually make accepted development um because the vehicle movements are likely to cause noise beyond the property boundary that would trigger it to code assessment well so I've my review I think that's about the only provision it wouldn't comply with. Brian Stockwell 20:46.881
So that would trigger a code. It would trigger a code as opposed to considering under the code whether that impact of noise was meets the performance. Objective that's correct in your and in your reporting you've identified that you believe the noise generated from the site does meet the performance outcomes? That's correct. And is there, if it was to be submitted afresh and your assessment that considering that, does the act require that Council must approve a code-assessable application that meets the performance outcomes of the code? It does. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Tom Wegener 21:28.225
So my question is the procedurally I'm not really excited about your amendment motion about your motion if this fails then do we go back to the original the staff recommendation. Brian Stockwell 21:50.942
Now we wouldn't be able to accept it at this meeting because it's already been tried and tested and hasn't got seconded. We'd have to wait for the Ordinary Meeting. Frank Wilkie 22:03.545
To the Chair because that's what I tried to do through my amendment yes and is. Karen Finzel 22:06.496
Yes and unfortunately and me I couldn't ask my question and had by to wait as the Chair because I needed further information to understand the process my before us before my decision. Know. Brian Stockwell 22:25.021
Let me think. No, I'm wrong. Because the amendment didn't get a seconder, it was never accepted. So nothing other than this has been moved. So it doesn't block it being re-litigated. Amelia Lorentson 22:41.990
Could so she clarify, Councillor Stockwell, if this motion fails, we can move the staff recommendation? Brian Stockwell 22:52.580
Mr I believe so. Frank Wilkie 22:54.713
Thank you. Which is what my amendment was. I think it's I think there's been a lack of understanding about what's occurring. That's OK. Tom Wegener 23:06.424
Mr so you brought an alternative motion. I thought our normal procedure was we have somebody move the staff recommendation, and then we make an amendment that would have been preferable, wouldn't it? Yeah. That's why my gears are clogging up here. You don't always do that. Brian Stockwell 23:26.695
Sorry. I just sought to get that item of matter dealt with separately. As you say, it probably would be better to be as an amendment, but that's. Frank Wilkie 23:35.954
Perfectly valid course of action. Brian Stockwell 23:45.173
If there's no one else wish to speak to the motion, I'll put the motion. I still support it. I'll waive my right. That's Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell. Those against the motion. That's Councillor Wilkie, Wegener, Phillips, Finzel and Lorentson. I'll move the staff recommendation. Against. Yes. Okay. Do we have a seconder for the staff recommendation moved by Councillor Wilkie? Karen Finzel 24:18.629
Happy to support for the debate, yes. Brian Stockwell 24:21.091
That's Councillor Finzel second. Councillor Wilkie, you may speak. Frank Wilkie 24:24.535
Councillor Finzel thank you, Councillors. This is essentially what I was, what you see before you is what I was moving. Through the amendment to Council Stockwell's motion which means refusing to delete commission 21 means that there will be that trial period for the new arrangements. The two new staff were are allowed to work on site. And everything else is as per the staff recommendation. So I think the staff have done their due diligence in this regard even though all the complaints made regarding this property and business during the last two year trial period were found to be unsubstantiated, I think it's wise to take precautions and still have that trial period continue. Another few years to see if the extra staff on site cause any amenity issues for the natives. Brian Stockwell 25:36.305
Question for Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 25:41.266
Councillor Finzel can go first, she had her hand up, thank you. Brian Stockwell 25:44.406
Is your hand up for another question, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 25:47.526
Yes, thank you, Councillor Lorentson, and thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I'd just like to reiterate, I think that, want to go into too much I'm in support of retaining this condition, because I think it does give that greater level of assurity and comfort to the people that have raised their very relevant concerns around this home-based business. So, I'm I do support this, because I do think it gives us another layer of opportunity to be able to address anything that arises now and into the future. Brian Stockwell 26:26.146
Thank you. Now, your question, Councillor Lorentson. I've got a question to Andrew. Amelia Lorentson 26:32.718
I'm referring to the poem permit, as the original permit, condition number 21. It states that this permit lapses on 17 December 2022 unless written consent is provided by Council to extend the approval in assessing an extension. Council will have regard to any complaints received from nearby residents concerning breaches of the development approval conditions and any other relevant matters. I'm just seeking clarification of other relevant matters. Patrick Murphy 27:11.356
I'll try and answer that one, Councillor. It doesn't relate to the relevant matters we might have discussed within the planning legislation. It was just a for a broad scope of assessment by the officers to consider any matters that may be relevant. Not limiting it to just complaints that may have been received, but allowing a broader, as I said, broader scope of assessment. Amelia Lorentson 27:41.062
I'll speak to this, if that's okay. So, I'm not going to support the recommendation in front of us. I don't support A, the recommendation A, which is to approve the application and agree to change condition 10 to allow two employees at the site between the hours of 8 to 4 8 4pm. Monday to Friday. And I also don't support the recommendation C, which is delete condition six of the original permit. And I'll speak to the original permit, which stated clearly and was also agreed to by the applicant that the approved use must be conducted by a permanent resident or of the detached house. It was clearly articulated that no employees are permitted. Today I'm just going to speak clearly and straightforward. I'm going to ask the Councillors today to prioritise the interests of the young family that are living 45 metres from the meat processing facility. We shouldn't allow the addition to employees and it's my opinion that we keep the current permit conditions which still allows the resident of the dwelling to operate the business but without employees. To me that's the right thing to do and it's also a win-. We acknowledge and respect the wishes of this young family and we also acknowledge that stress and anxiety are real impacts. Brian Stockwell 29:32.392
I'm going to refer to one of the many emails that I've received and I think planning staff have also received. Amelia Lorentson 29:41.512
This one is from the neighbour and she states that. Brian Stockwell 29:48.674
Just hold on a moment. Martin, I'm sure. I'm just concerned about privacy legislation. Would Councillors be prevented from raising a matter if it had been raised as a complaint to. Richard MacGillivray 30:03.868
Yes, Councillor, I would apply caution regarding Privacy Act principles. In terms of releasing details about particular. No. Amelia Lorentson 30:14.210
Thank you, Richard. Thank you, and I respect that. I withdraw, I won't talk about that. Okay, so again, going back to my reasons not. Supporting the addition of the extra two employees and just retain the original permanent conditions is that, again, it's the. A win-. The applicant can still operate the business. If they want to employ two additional workers, they still can by considering perhaps relocating to a light industrial area. And I just think that the solution to retain the current. Permit conditions benefits both the applicant and the neighbour. Condition 21 of the development approval, and we just heard from the planning staff, states that Council will consider complaints from the residents about breaches of the approval condition. And other relevant matters. So I put it to the Council's stress and anxiety, recognised under work, health and safety laws are, in my opinion, relevant matters that must be taken into account. The young family, again, living only 45 metres from the meat processing shed, had three children aged 16, 14 and 12. Brian Stockwell 31:42.309
Whoa. Excuse- Oh, excuse me. Of order. Councillors and members, point of order. Excuse me. I don't believe we should be talking about ages of children living next door. Unidentified Speaker 31:50.662
In terms of privacy. Amelia Lorentson 31:52.042
Sure. I respect that, there's a young family with children living next door. Yeah. And I just think that they have put in complaints to Council and I accept that the complaints have not been substantiated. They have been dismissed. But I think their persistence and the number of complaints highlights at the least the severity of their struggles. Our planning laws identify noise, light, odour as impacts, but they don't explicitly recognise mental stress and anxiety. Again, I stress the under. Condition 21 that I believe that these should be considered as other relevant matters. Brian Stockwell 32:39.910
Thank you, Councillor. Just a question in regard to number of employees. I write regard to number of employees was I write- recalling that the State government amendments it that councils couldn't limit number of employees to any less than two, is that right? Or people working on site? Amelia Lorentson 33:04.974
Point of order, Councillor Stockwell, is it appropriate for you to be interrupting me midway through my speaking? Brian Stockwell 33:11.560
Oh, sorry, I've got to go up to you, Councillor Lorentson, and I do apologise. No, no, no, I haven't, thank you. Yes, it is, if I wish to, but I'll hold over and I'll let you finish, sorry. Amelia Lorentson 33:25.731
Thank you very much. Again, I reiterate, mental stress and anxiety are real impacts that affect the wellbeing of our residents and we know this from speaking to residents living next door and surrounded by STAs. Noosa Plan is. A community document and it's designed specifically to protect our residents. I'm going to refer to section 12 of the Local Government Act that a Councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area. In 2021, Mayor Wilkie has already expressed that there was opposition to this application and the residents stood alongside the family living next door to the meat processing facility. Today I'm asking that we stand beside this young family and acknowledge that stress and anxiety are real impacts. I ask that we prioritise the well-being of this young family while still allowing the applicant to operate his business by retaining current. Conditions that allows no employees to operate and conduct the approved use. We again still allow the applicant to continue to operate his business and to also consider relocating to a more suitable area their business while protecting the health and well-being of nearby residents. We talk lots about putting people before profits. I think today will be a really good example of us doing that. Frank Wilkie 35:10.182
Of staff: is this application entirely consistent with the Noosa Planning Scheme? Richard MacGillivray 35:15.950
Yes and just for some relevance the code talks about up to six employees on rural and more residential land being able to assist with home-based businesses. Frank Wilkie 35:31.496
So this application is half the allowable number under the existing planning taking frameworks. Into account impacts on resident amenity. Was it true that the complaints about odour were investigated and found to be none? Patrick Murphy 35:52.015
That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 35:56.856
Is there any way through the process of this that conditions like any sort of landscaping or things that somewhere meet in the middle for both the, as I hear Councillor Lorentson's speech and that does really know hit home around the family but then also I just want to know I guess is there ways that we can maybe try a little harder to impose any conditions that might negate some of that. My first and I've got another one after. Andrew 36:28.802
Councillor I undertook our site inspection in the middle of January because I haven't seen the actual operation. When you arrive at the property there is an existing landscape buffer on the adjoining properties basically boundary. That's a fairly established landscape buffer already. It runs a full length of the driveway to the back of the shed. And there's also extensive landscaping around the shed. So you would have to be at the shed to view it I think to see the shed. Aside from that there is predominance of established landscaping along the length of the boundary between the shed properties at the moment. So there may be some opportunities for some minor additional landscaping but because of the amount already there in place it would be you know something that could be done as a token sort of thing I suppose. But you know there is substantial you landscaping within the property already. It was also a condition of the previous approval that some infill planting be undertaken. That has been done and it's been basically shown by the applicant where that's occurred. I saw that on the day I was there as well. Jessica Phillips 37:44.543
I have a question. Brian Stockwell 37:46.789
So, sorry. Councillor Phillips, you can go to the second one and we'll get to your next, Councillor Finzel. Jessica Phillips 37:51.169
When you attend, do you, visit? Is it appropriate ever to go to the neighbours to see? I know sometimes you can get one view from one. Has that ever been tested? I guess to make sure that it's appropriate from the neighbouring as well? Andrew 38:06.606
To enter their site to look? I didn't do that on the day. I did offer to meet the neighbour, but there was an email error, so I wasn't able to meet the neighbouring person on the day. Jessica Phillips 38:22.103
And just one more question please, or I'll have it before. The State legislation about six employees, does that? That open us up if it was refused? Is there any way they can? Patrick Murphy 38:38.360
So the State, the planning regulations have provisions around home-based business now and they state that a Planning Scheme can't require or restrict the number of people on site to less than two. Our Planning Scheme allows up to six. So you can have, your Planning Scheme can be more liberal than the requirements of the planning regulations in this regard. It couldn't be more stringent. Our Planning Scheme could not say one staff member on site because that would be a contravention of the two. But as I said, our scheme allows up to six and also it allows up to ten people on four occasions a week if you were conducting a class such as a yoga school or something like that. Karen Finzel 39:27.563
Yes, thank you. Just off the back of Councillor Phillips question, trying to negotiate a reasonable outcome for everyone involved. Especially when we do talk about stress, mental health and wellbeing, that could work both ways in this situation when you look at the stress and the mental health and wellbeing, not only for the next door neighbours, but also the young family running the business next door. We did receive correspondence from the neighbouring property. We did raise it at the P&E committee with regard to. Goes into is there a question? Yes, there is. Thank you. My question is, did the staff, following the P&E meeting, speak. To both parties with regards to construction of a fence as requested by the neighbouring property to negotiate an equitable outcome for all parties? No, I would say the answer with that would be no. Sorry, I didn't hear that. Andrew 40:34.917
There is actually, I guess, a bamboo sort of fence in place. I believe it's a chain wire fence running between the two properties. There's already a. Sort of screening device which includes a sort of a makeshift sort of bamboo screen at the entrance of the property. I'm unsure whether it runs the full length of the actual boundary. I wasn't able to physically get into that area of the site. To view that on the day? Patrick Murphy 41:03.247
So. Yeah, I think just it's important to note what we're assessing is a change to an existing approval to allow an additional two staff members on the site. And in that regard, the imposition of a condition for a paling fence along a 50-metre long boundary would be unreasonable. That's our opinion. Karen Finzel 41:26.561
I didn't hear. Sorry. I just didn't clearly hear the answer because I'm just wondering, is there opportunity to condition the fence to protect the health and well-being around the increased. Brian Stockwell 41:41.763
Yes, I'll repeat in short form what the manager of Development Control said. Basically, he said because we're dealing with an application to only change two conditions, it would. In their opinion, it would not be reasonable nor relevant to condition a new fence along the boundary between the two properties, and I think that's repeating the advice from the Planning & Environment Committee as well. Richard MacGillivray 42:06.849
Yep. And could I just. Sorry, just to add again, to that, Councillor, be mindful around Privacy Act provisions. Just referring to other parties and correspondence and the like is not really appropriate. So just if we can be cautious and careful relating to those matters. Thank you. Andrew 42:25.661
Can I also add. No. Oh, please. During the initial assessment of the request for change, I had a conversation with the applicant who raised, I guess, the costs involved in going through these processes with Council. That was probably the primary sort of focus of their concern, having to come back to apply and reapply for extensions to the approval. I was conscious at the time that, you know, he was. Wary of having to kind of come back to Council because it does typically involve engaging planning consultants to make those applications back to Council and paying fees. So I think, yeah, the addition of a substantial fence be would be something which financial would be a big cost to the applicant, which they probably wouldn't. Would like to undertake unless it achieved an outcome which would improve the situation at the site already. There doesn't appear to be any sort of reasonable need for such a substantial structure and also the actual physicality of building a fence of that length along the boundary would require probably the removal of a lot of vegetation that's already in place to get that structure. In. Brian Stockwell 43:49.056
Okay, so do we have any other questions? For Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 43:53.897
I do and I just referenced condition 19 that requests that the access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screen of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. Is it, can we request additional screening, planting in certain locations along the driveway to comply with that condition of the approval without amending the motion that's in front of us? Can that be just done as of, just done, again, to comply with the conditions. 19 and 20 of the approval? Patrick Murphy 44:36.142
Well, there is an ongoing requirement for the approval holder to have that landscaping installed and maintained. Officers have been to the site and confirmed that the landscaping has been undertaken. And that condition has been signed off. Andrew's recent site inspection noted a very small section at the front of the property where there is a, like a thatched style fence, which can be seen, but the remainder of the property is well landscaped. And we would consider it is compliant with the condition. Brian Stockwell 45:11.113
Yes, we'll be. Frank Wilkie 45:12.511
Just following on from where I think Councillor Phillips is going with her question. Is it the case that given the Noosa Planning Scheme, allows up to six employees on site, that if we refuse this application for an additional two, the applicant would be within their rights to appeal to the Planning & Environment Court? Patrick Murphy 45:32.500
They could, certainly. Frank Wilkie 45:35.845
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 45:38.443
Do Councillor Finzel have your hands up if you wish to talk? Karen Finzel 45:43.008
Yes, thank you. So that leads back to my question, which was regarding the process and the cost of offence. I'm just wondering if we negotiate a condition or agree on for the offence, you know, when we're talking about cost of P&E courts, cost of health and wellbeing and mental health to all parties. You're being very discursive. Okay, my question is, my question is, does the process allow for Council today to condition the building of a fence? Thank you, Mr Chair. Patrick Murphy 46:21.449
It's at Council's discretion if they want to impose further conditions or agree or otherwise with the officer's condition. Recommendation. Apologies, but as we've already said, we don't think it would be a reasonable condition to impose. Frank Wilkie 46:37.540
It would be something if we included that condition, the applicant could. They appeal, yes. Okay, on the grounds of being unreasonable. That's good. Speak the motion. Nicola Wilson 46:51.362
I'll speak to the motion. This business, or home business, has already been approved. The addition of two staff isn't going to change the intensity of the business, it's just to help the owner. Speaking about health and safety, at the moment, if the applicant was to fall ill or injured, they wouldn't be able to have anyone on site to help them until the business would pretty much fall over, so having up to two employees on staff is obviously to help the business to be sustained under its current conditions. I don't believe the arrival of one or two cars in the morning and departure in the afternoon is anything unreasonable compared to the level of vehicle movements that might occur in general a household. So I think these things are a reasonable application for a minor change. Brian Stockwell 47:43.202
Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 47:45.518
Just my last question, listening to Ryan. Is there any way between now and Thursday's Ordinary Meeting that there's any a way. A conversation around a condition of offence or something can be spoken to with the applicant to maybe make everyone's. Meet everyone's needs, I guess? Patrick Murphy 48:06.688
We can always go back and speak to the applicant. I think in terms of what Andrew has said, they're finding the application process onerous, financially as it is, so I'd be very surprised if they would be agreeable. Richard MacGillivray 48:21.106
To any kind of offence. Opportunity already lies there from a civil perspective, and parties can share the costs of establishing a fence along their boundary as well, so the concerns mentioned by Andrew earlier is that might result in some clearing of vegetation to establish a fence, and there and is there already some screening of that sort of fence structure that's already in that location as well, so we would put it to you that the owners, that the parties could always talk at any stage. To agree to installing a structure. Karen Finzel 49:01.493
Yes, thank you. Based on that question through the Chair or CEO of the staff then, are we able to, can I put forward a motion today that we don't make this decision until we provide opportunity for the two parties to talk about shared expenses for erecting a fence to try and achieve an equitable outcome for all parties? Brian Stockwell 49:26.334
That will be up to you to move a procedural motion, Councillor Finzel? Yes. Sir. I'll talk to the motion. The Planning Scheme offers a lot of strategic support for initiatives as this where we're so, patents placed. Markets. Niche markets. Food small-scale enterprises that take advantage of our locality and also the interest in a range of different foods that can be either grown or harvested off our landscape. This one has the dual benefit that it is actually controlling the feral animals at the same time as creating a niche gourmet meat product. It has operated successfully without any substantiated problems. We have at the time of the initial application gone out in sight and could not hear anything happening within the shed from as soon as you got out basically. So nothing like anyone with experience mowing a lawn for example. Was actually no noise coming from the establishment and it has very minor visual impact on any aspects of the neighbourhood. So I believe the request in the application and the staff report are the appropriate ways to hit. Karen Finzel 50:57.713
Well I'd like to move a procedural motion through the Chair, please. Sure. Thank you. I just. Please take it to the vote and see if we get appetite around the table to postpone this matter until the staff have had opportunity to speak to the neighbouring parties and see if there could be a resolution found with regards to so. Brian Stockwell 51:26.999
Councillor Finzel, would you like staff's assistance in framing that in a way that's consistent with the Standing Orders because there's no procedural motion to postpone? Karen Finzel 51:40.323
I'd be delighted, thank you. Brian Stockwell 51:42.480
So if staff could come up with an appropriate wording for an referral, please. Richard MacGillivray 51:59.443
Council, have I had, I mean obviously without getting into the wording, have concerns around two parties to come together and make a very important financial decision in a very short time frame under the obligation that we're assessing a development application and evaluating a decision that they could make at any point in time. I just question again the reasonableness and relevance of requiring staff to be set on a task to engage with independent parties on the basis of having a conversation about offence so whilst happy to assist with offence to so whilst happy to assist with some wording that would be my only comment in relation to the expectation of staff to create the situation for parties to create come back to Council so that would be my only question just to give some further consideration before we finalise some drafting. Brian Stockwell 53:09.996
If you could just move this then the standard promotion is then Council will have the chance to discuss Council will have the chance to discuss the merits of such a proposal. Patrick Murphy 53:21.141
It dates February- to allow- loud. 7-1. Brian Stockwell 53:34.921
Can you say the word be deferred? Richard MacGillivray 53:38.550
The word be deferred to allow staff to engage. Engage with relevant parties relevant in relation to. The establishment of a boundary fence. In relation. To. The establishment of a boundary fence. Of a boundary fence. Karen Finzel 54:19.180
Question to the staff, do you think we make it less prescriptive and have it just negotiate alternative outcomes or do you think we have to, I mean the reasons I'm raising this is based on your comment that the boundary fence would be a shared cost. I've also been looking at costs moving forward to all parties as well and also very mindful of the. Brian Stockwell 54:42.637
Councillor, I'm going to call you up, if you have a motion, if you wish for the motion to be used or something like that. Karen Finzel 54:47.477
Sure, okay then. Thank you Mr Chair, thank you to the. Staff, I'm happy to move it, let's second or the a first? Happens. Thank you, we're going we to have a second vote. Councillor, it's a placebo machine, don't we? Unidentified Speaker 55:01.554
Yes, it's a proceeding motion. Brian Stockwell 55:04.152
Do we have a seconder? He's to be in now. Yes. He is. The matter lapses to one and a seconder. Thank you everyone. We go back to the original motion. Then I wish to talk to the motion. I'll then go back to Councillor Wilkie and your opportunity to have the right of the refusal or the right of the reply. Frank Wilkie 55:32.988
The right of reply. Yeah, look, I think there's been some very good points made about the reasons for approving this application. Under the Planning Scheme in this zone they can have up to six employees on site. It is a valid rural enterprise. If Councillors don't like outcomes that are permissible under the current Planning Scheme then we don't vote against the Planning Scheme. We seek to amend the Planning Scheme. Planning schemes signal to the community what's permissible. It is unfair. To have this information out there, to have residents make applications in good faith, go to the expense of making applications in good faith and then have their applications refused after going to all that expense for reasons. That are contrary to the Planning Scheme. If we don't like it, we amend the Planning Scheme. I would urge Councillors to support the process and this motion. Brian Stockwell 56:44.011
I'll put those in favour. That is Councillor Wilkie. Wegener. Phillips-Wilson. Thank against. You very much. Garth of Stockwell, and those against would be Councillor Lorentson. The motion is carried. Councillor Lorentson. So we move going on to play it's going to be done if be you that obey. Your ideas that we wanted thank you. Any problems with sound? Okay. We move on to item 8, report to the General Committee. And the first is 8.1 on the new tentative A2 Peregian Digital Hub. Excuse me, Mr Chair. Out for a second. And up. We're blessed with the janitor's presence. So we have the, I think you've got a thing. You've got a manager of the Peregian Digital Hub. He's the Director. Of the Peregian Digital Hub. And he's here to give us an overview of what just we've got. Chris 58:06.771
Councillor, thank you for the opportunity. We have four office spaces at the digital hub in addition to the shared workspace that individuals small teams take up. From time to we have changes in tenancies and under the Council process we rely on our commercial real estate partner Colliers to help us keep those facilities tenanted with organisations that meet the objectives of the digital hub which are to build the tech and digital sector in the region and this is really just an update to inform Council that one of those tenancies has been vacated and we've secured a replacement tenant and that there's you know quite a nice story about the replacement tenant which is that it's three individuals that have met through the digital hub over the last number of months and have decided to form a new company and in so doing progress from having an individual sort of co-work space to or co-work desk to taking a lease with Council to build their company and hopefully be very successful in our environment. It's a company called NextPlay and they're in the technology recruitment space, so helping clients find technology talent and these days using very clever technologies to put employers and employees together. So that's it in a nutshell. We, you know, as a facility that tries to provide an environment for business growth, sometimes we have wins and sometimes we have losses in the sense that early stage companies sometimes find success and grow and sometimes even need to graduate out of our environment. Others might not be sustainable. Oh, sorry, I didn't know if that was background noise. That's right. Other early stage companies might not sustain and may die and, you know, in both of those cases we have to find replacement tenants. Our objective is of course to, through that process, meet both the sort of fiduciary requirements of the procurement process but also ensure that we minimise any revenue losses in between tenants leaving and new tenants being this case we've managed to do that. So yes, that's the, it in a nutshell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:02.684
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Nicola Wilson 01:01:06.314
I have a question. Forgive me from the system report. That based rental a commercial rate or do we offer any sort of discount? That is a commercial rate. Chris 01:01:20.134
And we do consider, discounts as any sort of commercial landlord would I guess. In this instance we decided that because the lease was for an initial one-year period that a discount couldn't be justified so we managed to agree. With the tenant that's it would be the regular full rate for that period. Brian Stockwell 01:01:50.361
Any questions? I have a question. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:54.394
Go on to it. Question, will the commercial lease with NextPlay be executed in-house without in-house lawyer? Chris 01:02:07.488
We have used an external firm for all of our leasing up until now in terms of agreements and extensions. So the intention wasn't to bring that in-house necessarily, but this is the first one we've had since we've had in-house counsel, so I guess I could take that on. Notice. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:31.792
Thank you very much. Thanks. Larry Sengstock 01:02:33.915
Not necessarily. Brian Stockwell 01:02:38.325
Okay. Does someone wish to move the motion? Councillor Wegener, seconded or. Karen Finzel 01:02:43.513
You for your time. Tom Wegener 01:02:51.675
I support the staff recommendation to give this lease and I want to congratulate the digital hub and yourself for continuing on and this seems like a great in that from within the digital hub itself we've created a new business that's going to have the space there and to boot it's almost like a double whammy because they are taking technology to help other startups so you're actually creating a startup to help other startups. That's fantastic. Chris 01:03:21.858
Thank you Councillor. Yeah it's bittersweet in fact because the tenancy that they're replacing is a company that has been very successful at the digital hub that has expanded and is setting up the HQ in Los Angeles, so you sort of sometimes you're the victim of your own success in this regard but whilst the leaders of that company have moved they've left a team in Peregian beach that is growing so we sort of get the best of both worlds there. But that's to some extent that is a sign of success as if we can help companies grow and they outgrow the facilities that we have but we want to make sure that they keep some economic presence here of course because you know it's about creating jobs and opportunities for others. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:10.534
Any others wish to speak? Frank Wilkie 01:04:11.818
No, I'd just also congratulate you Chris and your team down there on the work you're doing. Especially, it's not just the tenancies that you're renting out, it's the work you're doing to upskill the younger generation in coding and digital technologies, they're going to be the digital leaders of the future, they'll be able to create their own businesses, and work anywhere in the globe. And it's, this is what I can say, as you said, shows that the digital hub is working as intended, where start-ups come in, they grow, they expand, and they move on, and create more employment and prosperity elsewhere. Soon. Hope preferably within our show but it's um it's a great place for startups and you're doing great you've work done great there work keep there so keep it up. Chris 01:05:02.036
Thank you, Matt. Thanks again to everyone for the support in terms of, as you say, the role the hub plays in. Skill development and knowledge development I don't think there's ever been a more important time for that so you'll be hearing a lot from us in that regard this year particularly with the rise of AI and making sure that our community benefits from that so there'll be a lot of activity we'll keep you posted. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:05:26.069
Karen? You speak? Karen Finzel 01:05:29.900
Yes, thank you. I'd like to speak to the Mayor before us. Firstly, thank you to the digital hub and the report. This is an exciting, as you say, we're at an intersection in time that's really exciting and I'm sure our residents will be as excited as we work diligently towards a sustainable future where we look at diversifying our economy to also try and manage the impacts of congestion and lack of job opportunities and things like that. So I'm really pleased to support this motion. I'm excited that it is visionary and moving forward that the Digital Hub and everyone there keeps chipping away at these visions moving forward that's going to bring us all along and hopefully find meaningful solutions to our community on those issues that meet with them every day in the street where they're at. So happy to support this and looking forward to future endeavours in this space around expanding our. And diversification towards other businesses away from tourism to meet the expectations of our community that are looking for real everyday solutions to the impacts. So thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 01:06:48.255
Okay. Was there anyone else like Dr noton? No? Councillor Wegener, would you like to close? Tom Wegener 01:06:54.816
Sure, and just a quick note, I'm looking forward to hearing about. You. Brian Stockwell 01:07:00.336
Your hands sorry, Councillor Lorentson, did you wish to talk? Oh, I did, but I don't know whether anyone heard me. No? Amelia Lorentson 01:07:09.112
Oh, hello? Oh, excuse me. I just briefly want to talk to you because I'm about to leave the meeting after this report, but I want to just reference. The huge space that digital has placed in workforce and capability planning and that's coming soon in the reports under our. The reports under our operational. Reporting. Part of our Corporate Plan 2023-2028 we've identified, you know, the importance of workforce and capability planning and I think the question that I always ask is have we in the capacity and capability to deliver services to our community and meet future challenges and I think that's the huge space that you guys. Are filling and it's a really, really important space. We talk about jobs of the future, jobs we don't even know exist and we also talk about redesigning jobs and how, you know, as a Shire we keep identifying as one of our risks in almost every report that comes to Council, resourcing constraints. So I think you play an important space in how we rethink jobs and fill that space. Of capacity and capability, so thank you, Chris. Look forward to all the great stuff you do and keep up the great work. Chris 01:08:47.049
Thank you very much, Councillor. Brian Stockwell 01:08:48.821
Okay, thank you. So, Councillor, we'll get back to your part. Tom Wegener 01:08:52.063
Yeah, I was just looking forward to the report on the student activities over the holidays. That's really exciting as well. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:09:04.700
Okay. We're voting. Oh, we need to vote, yes. All those in favour? Yes. Is that all you think, Councillor Finzel? Amelia Lorentson 01:09:15.491
Thank you. And I'm leaving the meeting. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:09:19.624
I'll just wait. Councillor Finzel, if you can do it verbally, please. No, soberly, please. She's got her hand up. I'll take her hand up if it's being yes. It's being muted. Yes, Thank you. And we will note that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Bye. Okay, move on. Okay, we'll move on to 8.2, and that's Financial Performance Report, January 2025. Margaret Gatt 01:09:54.629
Good afternoon Councillors, how are you all doing? We table the monthly finance report as at 31st of January 2025, and I'll hand over to Pauline, our manager of finance, to take us through the detail of the report. Brian Stockwell 01:10:10.048
And I would, just for the purposes of the record, we have an Acting Director Corporate Services here with us for the next 12 months, and hence why you're not seeing Trent. We have mark. Pauline 01:10:23.048
Good afternoon Councillors. So firstly, Councillors should note that the January report is now reflective of Budget Review 2, which was adopted by Council last month. Financial performance for the month of January continues to be positive, with operating revenues continuing to outperform forecast and operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the year. Operating revenue is $1.6 million above budget which is primarily being driven by interest revenue of $1.1 million, almost $300,000 from sales of goods and services, $164,000 programs from and $240,000 from other revenue sources. This has been offset, however, by lower than forecast Fees and Charges, with development assessment fees down $350,000 noting that there are several large DA applications currently being assessed but, however, due to the stage of completion on those, that revenue has not yet been recognised. Building and plumbing fees, however, are $127 up $120,000 year-to-date. Operating expenditure is $770,000 under budget at this stage of the year, with employee costs $346,000 under budget. You to note that this is primarily due to the timing of staff taking annual leave, so there's a large contingent of staff taking leave over December and through January, and due to the way that we profile that, has kind of dipped down quite a bit, so that's sort of driving some of that. Materials and services $190 under budget,000 under budget at this stage. We do have overspends currently showing in civil operations of $342,000, and holiday parks is $104,000 over budget as well. You will note with holiday parks that they have a corresponding increase in their revenue line, which also have a corresponding commission line through their reports, so that correlates to their revenue. Waste is currently $428 $428,000 underspent, and that relates to the forecast contract and rise in their contracts not being as high as we anticipated. But overall, Council's year-to-date operating position at January 2025 is $2.4 million of a budget, which will be utilised to fund any emergent issues that happen throughout the year. Capital revenue is $9 million above budget and that's due to the timing of our profiling and receipt of QRA disaster funding and our SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget $28.4 million with $18.3 million relating to our disaster projects and $10.1 million relating to Council's base capital program. This variance is driven largely by budget profiling and the timing of the project delivery. Council currently is holding 110. And ten million dollars in cash reserves with 30 million dollars continuing to be invested in higher yielding to term deposits. We have not invested additional funds in term deposits because QTC, where we hold the balance of our funds, is also offering quite high yields at this stage as well. At this stage of the financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that might arise for the remainder of the year. Brian Stockwell 01:13:34.033
Thank you. So, questions, Councillors? Yes. Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 01:13:39.671
Yeah, thank you very much for the report. I had a question about civil operations expenditure, which is higher than expected. Does that mean it's been a higher than expected work rate or higher than expected costs? Pauline 01:13:53.657
So, we have done some investigation and some of it was some re-profiling. However, parks and gardens continue to be higher than we had originally forecast in terms of some arborist services and mowing contracts. So, we are doing some more work on that in terms of looking at the timing of that work and seeing where that ends for the remainder of this year. Brian Stockwell 01:14:15.058
Infrastructure also wishes to provide a reply. Shaun Walsh 01:14:20.243
In the budget process for last financial year, we actually executed savings of about $900,000 in the civil assets and operations budget to actually balance the books. We're hoping that there will be a drier year in terms of vegetation growth and vegetation management. That it hasn't, you know, borne fruition. And we're actually seeing real costs actually bearing down the budget. You recollected for the Councillors I had a good discussion about that, you know, trimming the budget, you know, achieves sustainability and financial expenditure but allowed very little room for reactive works to actually respond to emerging issues so and certainly working with civil assets and operations to you know further refine the budget but this is the direct consequences of budget savings from last financial year as well. Frank Wilkie 01:15:03.796
So you're saying is it mining, vegetation, art, this work are this work. Shaun Walsh 01:15:08.044
Because of excessive growth and yeah that's large a part of it. Some of the initial investigations to take that some years ago prior to this Council and prior to my executive involvement there was a trimming in the roadside vegetation management budget associated with road safety. There used to be three passes and that's now down to one pass. And what's happening is that when we go to do road work such as sheeting works or resealing works, we're having to be hit with significant vegetation clearing works to actually get the road to a safe standard because there needs to be clearance for the vegetation. So that's some of the things we're finding through investigation. The other thing we're finding is a significant increase in safety or traffic control. That there was legislative changes about three years ago and we haven't been fully implementing those safe practices recently and we're now having to implement safe traffic control practices. Noting we have had some significant road safety incidents where people have been ignoring traffic control and driving into, attempting to drive into people as well as property. So we're actually, as a result of incidents, having to spend a lot more on traffic control to meet standards. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:16:16.449
You. The other question I had was about provisions. In the balance sheet seemed to be projected to be significantly lower than last year. Could you just explain why that would be? Statement of financial position. So you're referring to provisions 11 million versus 8 million? Versus eight million? Pauline 01:16:43.460
Yes. Okay. So the large proportion of the provisions relate to our landfill rehabilitation. We've had several years with forecasting the do. Life of that particular facility as well as the cost of doing that. It was higher in previous years because we had a bit of a catch-up to do so that bumped our provisions up a little bit higher than what we were before but we also consume those as we do capping works. So you'll see we had originally forecasted a which would have brought that provision down this year. We also have employee provisions running through those lines as well. So there hasn't been, there's only like two million dollar reduction which we would expect to see coming down and particularly in relation to the landfill over time as we do works. To remediate thank that site. Frank Wilkie 01:17:27.480
You. And could you also put the below budget actuals for development assessment into some sort of context, reasons why? Pauline 01:17:36.622
Well development assessment charges are always dependent on the applications that come in or the works that are being time, so we can see different times. I'm not sure if Richard has any statistics in that respect. Richard MacGillivray 01:17:48.771
Yeah, through the Chair. Think it's slowing down, but we're still getting the steady number of applications coming through. We're probably not getting as many new larger development applications, which generate larger fees. As Pauline mentioned, we do have a number of large applications which we are withholding some of the revenue from those fees as we progress through the application. So we release earn that revenue as it through the process. But overall we're not probably getting as much of that larger revenue DA as we would. We are looking at our Fees and Charges very closely for the upcoming budget to just make sure that the cost recovery principles are being adhered to so that yeah so that those lower lowering end fees are we're recouping our full cost on those to make sure that we end up sort of meeting our budget predictions but we are finding that we're not getting as many as those big new DA fees coming in. That's the only reason for that. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:18:48.007
Other questions? Karen Finzel 01:18:50.897
Yes, thank you. Yes, thank you for the report. Comprehensive as always. A question to the Chair, through CEO. The staff is under budget to 346,000 underspend. Can you just tell me a little bit about the enterprise bargaining agreements and how those conversations are progressing in relation to the budget? Which is a budget. Larry Sengstock 01:19:24.053
Yeah, I'm just thinking of what can be said here and what you'd like to know in this forum, Councillor. We are operating, this is operating on the existing certified agreement, the existing yes, payments. The certified agreement has been negotiated. It technically finishes, or it's finished at the end of February, so we have a period now between the end of February and July, but we haven't finalised the negotiations of the. New CA at this point in time, so we're making whatever allowances we think will be needed, but until it's finalised, we don't know the exact number. Karen Finzel 01:20:08.599
Thank you. Yeah, just, I'm not sure going I've to direct this question through. Given we're coming in under budget, do you feel reasonably confident then that we'll be able to negotiate, you know, good outcomes for our staff that need to be either being moved from casual positions. Full-time contracts or expecting, you know, they've gone up in a level through staff training, that we have, you know, a budget position that we can provide assurance that we'll be able to manage these effectively? Brian Stockwell 01:20:41.322
I don't think I'll allow the question, Councillor. It's getting into matters that are currently under negotiations and that would. An appropriate answer may. I respect that. Karen Finzel 01:20:59.802
Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't want to compromise any of that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Brian Stockwell 01:21:06.267
Okay. Other questions or does someone wish to move the motion? Karen Finzel 01:21:12.817
Happy to move. Morris. Happy Di-Morris. Councillor Wilkie. Over to you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you for the report. I think it's all been said. As always, the report, you know, gives us a clear indication of where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. So keep up the good diligence and these reports are read, are easy to understand, and I think it gives us a really clear indication of where we're headed. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:21:45.660
Who else would you to? Thank you both. Okay. So, Councillors, no one else wishes to talk, so you don't need to close unless you really want to. I'll put the motion. Happy to proceed, fine. Thank you. I'll put the motion. No. That's unanimous. Okay, thank you. We'll move now to item 8.3, operation or plan, 2024-25 second quarterly report. Reached 14, and. Deb 01:22:23.438
Good afternoon everyone. Nicola Wilson 01:22:27.725
So this report is the Q2 report and it's already identified and it covers the period the 1st of October to the so 31st for all of our viewers, the requirement to report our progress is a statutory requirement and the CEO is to report on our operational performance. This report presents our performance against 107 initiatives by themes and those themes relate to the Corporate Plan. Progress has been good this quarter. We've actually improved and got a number of projects back on track. 82% are either completed or on track with 17 encountering. Minus disruptions and two initiatives major disruptions. And compared to the previous quarter we've actually been able to get a couple of projects back on track so that's the. Hence that's shown in the figures. So the attachment 1 gives a detailed breakdown in the report by theme with all of the initiatives and their current progress and their status. There's also some general commentary around the. Current situation which impacts on our initiatives, things like our very heavy community engagement calendar, some of the challenges we face with staff turnover and vacancies in key positions, and then other issues around, we have a number of significant plans and strategies which are yet to be finalised, which does impact on the operational areas, especially in relation to the number of projects they're managing, but also being able to bring projects to completion. Deb 01:24:12.265
Attachment 2 is just really a high order summary in a spreadsheet of all of the initiatives by theme as well. Going forward, that probably won't be produced in the report because we're aiming to actually produce the report from our new corporate planning system for the next round of reporting provided everything goes to plan. So it's a little bit, it's still under development but we're nearly there. And then attachment three just provides an update on the operational KPIs that we've traditionally reported on with some commentary. There are a couple of areas where unfortunately commentary wasn't provided. We had a bit of a hiccup because this is, these reports are actually produced from the system and there are just a couple of areas, but I'm sure the directors will be able to answer any questions if you had any specifics on that. One that I'd probably like to highlight is the staff turnover figure, which is getting close to the 20%. If you do compare it to Australian figures, the average turnover rate to December 24 was 14%. And in the public sector, it's 18%. So we're not alone in this situation. So very reflective of public sector figures. Having said that, of course, we need it, especially the delivery of a lot of our projects depends on having those staff, and there are some hot areas at the moment as well. Frank Wilkie 01:25:33.152
Just a clarifying question on that Deb, about 19%, is that specifically the second quarter? Deb 01:25:40.491
Yes. Okay. So it's not showing the current figure, for example, which would be reported in the next quarter. So it's to the 31st of December. Frank Wilkie 01:25:51.214
Yeah. And in terms of your research around that, the key reasons why there's that high turnout in the public sector at the moment? Deb 01:26:02.207
Would you like me to talk to that Larry? Larry Sengstock 01:26:03.577
I think there's a whole lot of reasons. Yeah, look, there's a number of factors. Deb 01:26:10.096
You know, the we've had difficulty for the last few years recruiting skilled people protecting the technical engineering trades given the amount of capital and infrastructure projects that are going on state-wise and even nationally. So there's that. The other is that they're generally there normally is movement between local governments and local governments traditionally the way that you got promoted was that you applied for higher positions in other councils and you know we're not a large Council but we're a decent sized Council but so there is movement which just normally occurs in that regard. The other is that the cost of living for employees to come to Noosa and live in Noosa is very high and you might find that you have someone who's actually been successful and when they get here trying to find a place to live is a problem and can they then afford to actually live here and then take the position. There are a number of factors. Do you want to throw in any more Larry? Larry Sengstock 01:27:08.327
Oh I think it's just people that the general there's a general movement of people as well that people just move roles where in the past they've stayed longer in roles and that's it a factor but I think it's cost of living it is it's just a whole range of things that come to play in this and we are making a whole lot of moves as best we can to try to stabilise our workforce but unfortunately you think you've got it stable and then there's a whole lot of competing requirements you know in we're losing staff and finding it difficult to find staff in our finance areas we've talked before but also in our project management area because there's so much work going on out there that people are either going back into the private or sector there or are other jobs the amount of construction that's going on just in the roads and new facilities that are being built and the Olympics coming so there's a whole lot of work just constantly so we're battling against that and we are trying to make sure that we're competitive from the financial and remuneration as best we can but we are a local government and we've got constraints there as well but so it's a difficult place to do and again we're not immune to it we're not sorry we're not alone to it we're um the councils around us are having exactly the same issues. Deb 01:28:28.550
Yeah and we have the executive team has recognised this and updated the strategic risk register and some of the actions to address that is reviewing our traction and retention strategies and developing a strategic work workforce plan and progressing that so that's been escalated in our strategic risk register as well which was reported to the Audit and Risk Committee just last week. Thank you, just a question. Jessica Phillips 01:28:53.806
Probably through to the CEO. Through to the CEO, suggested it at the SMO if possible for Councillors to be able to make really informed decisions with the exit interviews that we're seeing with staff lead if we could somehow see a workshop or a report around the reasonings why so we get a really good detailed decision. Larry Sengstock 01:29:16.686
Position. Sure, we can bring that to you. Thanks. Deb 01:29:20.918
If I may as well I'll just contribute something further I think it's very important that going forward that you know that in what we're doing in relation to our employee engagement into our leadership that we continue to engage with our staff so they want to stay with Noosa and they are valued and considered to be valued employees so that work which is being headed by Amy in the community in the employee engagement area is really important going forward and making sure you know the well-being of our staff so that people actually, that we can try to retain people. That is an important factor, going forward. Frank Wilkie 01:30:02.646
Staff recognition awards afternoon, for example. Sorry, I interrupted you. Deb 01:30:13.020
Yeah is that no that that's fine. I'm happy to take on board any questions or the relevant directive can answer more specifically. Brian Stockwell 01:30:18.909
I'll just kick off. So you said we've got a new system coming through. While it's an operational and the plan is one year, what we hope to achieve in one year from the Corporate Plan, when staff are reporting, are they looking directly at the operational plan or are they actually reporting against their branch plans down here? I'm just looking, will the new system actually provide that alignment if it's the latter? Deb 01:30:44.143
It will, when it's fully implemented because we link, it aligns the operational plan, each operational plan initiative with the Corporate Plan objective and it will be able to then flow down that you would then be able to allow, align to branch plans. At the moment those branch plans are sitting in excel spreadsheets or word documents. So it will give us integrated, more integrated picture of it. Branch plan would contain the initiatives that are in the operational plan as well as other projects and initiatives that relate more to the service delivery side of things that don't necessarily get reported to Council. So, yeah, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:31:26.105
So just to follow on, so the traffic light type approach, if we've got something in the operational planning where the branch says, well, we've had that position break, does that show up in their planning? Show up in their planning as in they don't have a lower expectation or does target the we set before knowing that we're going to have a long loss of a key staff member, just a couple in there that I was surprised are showing as on track where I think they're behind. Deb 01:31:59.624
Yeah, look, and we sometimes people do actually in their commentary probably, I suppose, want to promote that they are progressing, do you know what I mean? We really will need to keep an eye on that in the third quarter because then we will be looking to develop the new operational plan. In the last quarter there were a number there are several initiatives that were showing minor and major disruptions that have got back on track but it will need we to scrutinise it a little bit more closely to make sure the reporting is accurate but particularly at that quarter three because you do not want to get to quarter four and think everything's progressing just fine on track and then get a surprise but normally that doesn't happen um you know there can be developments in projects with a chat with a Council decision for example which allows things to progress and staff have been working pretty hard to bring things back on track. Brian Stockwell 01:32:56.168
Yeah I'm always thinking about this I'm sure when people are filling out their part they're doing it in accordance with their plan but I'm just wondering whether that by nature because we have a 20% vacancy rate that we're not capturing that 20% loss of productivity because it's free yeah yeah you know that's yeah we might have to think about maybe on a programming level start looking at what was our starting capacity for this quarter to achieve this outcome yeah to really see the impact of the resourcing on the delivery yeah yeah other questions? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:33:35.692
Myself. Man. Time. 2.6.1 2.6.1 there's a red and the initiative is to undertake the preparatory phase for the proposed development a new community strategy which outlines the community vision for Noosa. And it says that it's a major disruption to Noosa staffing. Well, I'm going to have this actually to speak between the question and the. There's anything. You're doing it. Frank Wilkie 01:34:08.035
Oh, yeah. You've got all the other questions. Yeah. Perhaps you'd like to move the motion. Tom Wegener 01:34:12.961
Oh, yes, I'd like to move the motion. Brian Stockwell 01:34:16.030
Certainly. Now you can cancel it you if may want. Speak. May speak overall. Tom Wegener 01:34:23.048
Okay, first of all. It's very impressive. I look at the year in review and I look at the operational plan and it is so big and it's so massive that it is impressive and where I'm going with this is when I set out 2.6.1 that we haven't started the undertaking of a preparatory phase for the proposed development of a new community strategy. I'm looking at this saying this is actually our community strategy our operational plan is impressive and what we're doing is utterly amazing and sometimes I consider that we're moving into a Destination Management Plan kind of looking forward where I think our goals of this year are to continue doing what we're doing to finish what we're doing because the operational plan is on track it's fantastic and in my opinion this is the heart and soul of our Noosa Council is just to maintain doing what we are actually doing and to perhaps celebrate a bit more of these successes. For example, in the operational plan we're delivering the cycling cycle and walking implementation plan which is our destination management. The Go Noosa, again, implement STA local laws. For your management plan, Public Art Policy, the Noosa Biosphere trail, Botanic Gardens Master Plan, pathway renewals, boating land, the libraries, all of this is within our operational plan and to me this is the heart and soul of what we actually do outward facing to the community. So on a wider level I just love to see us celebrate these and continue doing what we're doing and finishing up not launching into anything that might detract from this because this is what I don't think anything should over lay this because this is working and it's what we're doing so I'm just thoroughly impressed and that's okay. Thank you. I'll just wish that's to talk. It thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:36:48.246
No? Thank you Deb for the report. The one thing I get from this is as Councillor Wegener said it's just the enormity of tasks that this Council has set our staff to do last minute. At the last budget. The 107 initiatives, 88% of them are on track. There's been some disruption to some of them. We've heard the reasons, some of the reasons why and it just makes me a bit conscious of one of the distractions that were mentioned was unplanned demands on staff time and I think that's something for us Councillors to be mindful of when we bring extra tasks to the to staff to undertake that were not originally set out in the massive budget and funded operational plan that we all unanimously agreed upon when we adopted the budget but please pass on our thanks to the staff for the great work. That they continue to do day after day and then there's operational issues on top of this they're just the day-to business of the Council that's also churning away as well as these other strategic more strategic initiatives so please thank the staff you know I will, absolutely, it's meet you. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:38:23.668
Oh, I appreciate it. Like on the whole it's a very good report suggesting good progress on track with what we plan to do we balance that against what we'd like to do and a lot of time as Councillors we get the query about why aren't you doing what you strategically said you were going to be doing and Councillor Wegener was sort of saying well we just keep on doing what we're doing. But there are some key strategies that we have adopted that aren't going as quickly as I would like and as the community is like and many around this table we have to realise that this report doesn't highlight some of the key issues. Eastern beaches portial management plan, it being one of the ones beset by a long vacancy. We also have to make hard decisions about the budget. We didn't put a lot of money in there for restoration of encroachments. We didn't put money in the budget for replacing a coastal engineer to do the beach accesses. So these are things that don't show that don't show up in the Corby operational plan, but it's what when the community who are engaged look at it in their project and say it's on track but they haven't known what they've said. These are the things as councils we have to work out how we communicate that and being open and all the same. Here we hope to achieve more by now if I can walk away. Every budget comes up I'll say yeah just increase the funding by ten times and we'll get there. But we have to also be the reality that to fund these initiatives if we don't get grants comes of so we have to balance the desire with the actual reality of having a balanced budget but on the whole this report shows we're on track with doing what we said we'd do this year. Frank Wilkie 01:40:12.143
Anyone else? Just a follow-up question about that the eastern beaches foreshore management plan is something that's intended to run over multiple years, is it not? So and here you've mentioned that you've listed the actions that have been completed under that but there are more years to run before it's all the actions are completed. It- Just to put it-- Deb 01:40:36.555
Is and there are several other initiatives like that where the plans actually the programs run over a number of years and it's just reporting against the particular year but they do extend over later years. Brian Stockwell 01:40:50.562
Thank you. Thank you. Phillips, would you like to speak? Jessica Phillips 01:40:58.862
Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the report. It's comprehensive and gives us a good snapshot and a road map on our destination towards where we're heading. I like the idea that we are reaffirming our continued focus on community resilience, facilities and services. Especially health and wellbeing, culture and creativity. Again, you know, we've got to work hard as a Council to try and balance our aspirations, our set targets and our budget to try and get, you know, equity across the Shire and meet all the needs and expectations. Having said that, you know, our Corporate Plan, we are striving to support strategies and plans and we are heading towards the Noosa community strategy and social justice charter, which will, again, will help ensure that this liveability and Noosa being a place where not only do we respect our biosphere values and our environment, but we really focus on our people and where they would like to be, and together we're moving forward. So I think we're all working hard in this space, including the staff that have presented the report, and together we'll keep moving forward on the matters raised. So thank you everybody for the work and the time and the energy that you have put into this body of work. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:42:34.419
Councillor Wegener, would. Tom Wegener 01:42:35.022
You like to extend your right of to reply yeah considering that the budget, I'm hoping that especially the new Councillors will start to begin connecting the dots from the operational plan to the budget. And I don't think we really had the opportunity to do that in the last budget session because we were just elected and we kind of rushed in and we had a couple of initiatives that we voted on. But to really perhaps step back and look at the operations and look we spend our money on and maybe have a more distant approach to it and see on a more holistic level how things are moving along with the Council. Because my consult is that our operation plan is fantastic and my opinion might be that focusing on initiatives moving forward may be offset somewhat by really looking at what we're doing and finishing what we're doing and appreciating what we're doing and getting to know what we're doing a little bit better. Because we need to change, yes we need to change, but we actually do stuff really well and the meeting and the plan just brought that to me. It's just my gosh you know how the whole system really spins well. We have a very very good stable Shire and this proves it but to step back and financially maybe appreciate it a little bit more instead of looking off in the future and seeing what's over the horizon looking in our own backyard. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:44:12.384
Blue star Council win. I'll put the motion. All those in favour. Yes. And that's unanimous. That brings us, there is no confidential session, so that brings us to the close of the meeting. Thank you. And we will thank Councillors for their attendance and amicable participation in closed meeting at 2:14. Frank Wilkie 01:44:41.153
Thank you, Mr Chair. Karen Finzel 01:44:44.456
And staff. Thank you, Mr CEO. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
